Ecclesiastes 1:9

[Eclipse]

(Or the Book of Pythia)

New uniform proposals, updated uniforms, redacted uniforms.

What should CAP be?

What happened to CAP (i.e. its worse / better than it ever was).

I can't be the only one who thinks time has folded in on itself here...

[NCRblues]

....?

[RogueLeader]

[Майор Хаткевич]

All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.

[davidsinn]

All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.

So say we all.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Nothing but the rain?

[billford1]

I know some of our AF Liason people read this forum. Their opinions  of us may vary but they keep coming out to see us. We have an AF Reserve TSgt who is smart and has high expectations. We are lucky enough to have a number of former Military Officers, Pilots and NCOs in our Squadron who want to perform well and who inspire those  among those of us who aren't former Military to want to do well. When we have our AF eval naturally we pay attention to the evaluators. I realize that CAP is not high on everybody's list but if we share our perspectives and gripes some of those who pay attention may effect positive change. I agree with you that this kind of change is not new but positive change could result if the right people read this and see merit in what we say.

Respectfully, Bill

[wingnut55]

Last couple of times I had AF guys in the plane they told me that many of the AF guys see us as a flying club?? On a more serious note several said we cannot meet our own professional standards for pilots??

Don't kill the messenger   

[Gunner C]

Yeah, that's why one of those liaison guys crashed one of DCWG's aircraft.  Remember, these guys aren't exactly first string.

[NCRblues]

That's the response I usually get from Air force personnel on all levels. I do not believe as a whole the Air force dislikes us, they just have never been told the details about what cap does. Driving through the gate the other day coming back from a local meeting, the SF airman says "hey sir, what is that uniform you have on (I had bdu's on) with blue nametags" I said I am in the Civil air patrol, he looks at me with a blank stare and says "oh that cadet thingy with old guys that fly prop jobs?" Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to fully explain to him what it is. I think this is the problem on many levels up to and including CAPS liaison's. They just don't understand cap, and no one takes the time (and sometimes they don't want to) to explain to them what cap and its volunteers really mean.

[flyguy06]

I dont think a lot of people in CAP know what CAP is. I read in another thread that someone wished we were strickly the USAF Aux. I tend to agree with that. We have too many uniform combinations. I went to the Region Staff Conference and the USAFR instructors were like "why do some you guys wear different uniforms if you're part of the same organization?" Good point I thought.

The group that wants to be more of a civilian organization has caused a distance between the USAF. I think if we need  two types of uniforms and enforce the policy. If you meet the height and weight standards you will (not may) wear the military style uniform. If you dont meet the height and weight standards you will (not may) wear the white shirt and grey pants combo. point blank. We give members too many choices. we are afraid to set strict guidelines for fear of upsetting the volunteer and them leaving. If you're gonna have an organization, then you need to have standards. If the member is truly committed they will stay.  Not vaugue standards but standards across the board.

CAP is the Auxillary of the United States Air Force. We should act, look and feel like a military organization. Coast Guard Aux does it. The various state Defense Forces do it. Why doesnt CAP do it? I too hear service members laugh and scoff about CAP. Its not because members are military wannabees, its because members dont look  or act like military professionals and a lot of local units dont enforce the standard.

Squadron Commanders overlook what they consider "little" things like saluting, calling the room to attention when senior officers come in. Addressing senior officers by first ame instead of rank. Civilian volunteers pay these things no mind. But when LO's and other military personnel see this behavior, they pay attention anfd form opinions. They think  to themselves " I thought these guys were military but look how they act." and then the respect fatcor goes down. Sure they respect us for our ES missions but as a military aux. well, thats why they look at us the way they do.

Chain of Command needs to be better. How often do Wing Commanders physically meet with Group Commanders? How often do Group Commanders meet with Squadron Commanders? I mean as a whole not individually. Commanders Calls. Mentoring of junior commanders. Everyone on the same sheet of music.  when you have SquadronCommanders going up to Wing Commanders emailing  them their woes and the Group Commander knows nothing about it. Well, thats not an effective chain of command.

[jimmydeanno]

The group that wants to be more of a civilian organization has caused a distance between the USAF.

I am usually lumped into this crowd, because people don't understand what I try to say in regards to it.  Perhaps it is just that I am a poor communicator.

I see CAP as having two separate loyalties.  The first is to the USAF as its Auxiliary.  As their Auxiliary, we receive appropriated funds, have missions assigned from them, some of us even wear a uniform that sort of looks like them.  However, I think that as an organization, we have allowed the "government mindset" to set in.

This side appeals to many because they want to have the association with the military.  They want the pomp and circumstance that comes with the association, ribbons, etc.  They want to do missions that help the Air Force, and they want to tell people they are members of the United States Air Force Auxiliary.

The hard chargers of this crowd tend to be the ones that want a CAP that is governed and run by the Air Force.  They want an Air Force General as the National Commander, like good 'ol John F. Curry.

Many of them even wish they could get rid of those darn heavy people with facial hair so their reputation as an Auxiliarist isn't damaged.

What they neglect to realize is the second loyalty/facet of CAP.

That second loyalty, like it or not, is to our 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation side.  That can not be neglected, especially in fiduciary matters.

This is the side of CAP that invites people to join, the one that feels more inclusive, the one that feels approachable and inviting.  This is the side that says "We're a benevolent community organization" and we help local people.  This of course applies to cultural items.

To me, corporate doesn't mean "not as professional," but in many ways, more professional.  When you view your organization as one that can't ignore its financial stability or else it will die, things get done.  For too long our governance bodies have ignored the non-profit side of our funding.  They haven't done fundraising, planned giving, etc.  This leaves us in a situation where we just expect money to be given to us, because that's how government agencies run.  Spend all your money by the end of the year or you won't get more next year.  Not a good way to run a business.

Like it or not, our organization needs to embrace both sides of its loyalties equally.  To do this, the two cultures need to integrate better.  Our leadership needs to recognize that we are indeed a business.  Our members need to realize that people aren't joining our organization so they can be members of the Air Force, but a volunteer organization that helps their communities. 

I don't know if that helped or hindered my view, but it's complicated to get the culture and the dual responsibilities to integrate together.

[NCRblues]

I just don't get how we can play a puppet to two masters. How are you going to draw people into the organization?

Come join CAP, participate in Air force funded and sanctioned search and rescue, if you're a pilot, fly in our air force funded aircraft, drive our air force funded vehicles to cap functions. Attend Air force sponsored classes to expand you knowledge of ES functions through air force grants. Wear military style grade on the uniforms for our organization make a difference in your nation....oh and by the way, we have a corporate side as well that.... Well... does..... um.....

We can't run cap like a business, it just won't work. Yes we spend our money that congress and the air force gives us, but it seems like you suggest we shouldn't spend money. What should we horde it for? A Rainy day? Not trying to be condescending just want to know how a corporate only run organization would work.

[jimmydeanno]

We can't run cap like a business, it just won't work. Yes we spend our money that congress and the air force gives us, but it seems like you suggest we shouldn't spend money. What should we horde it for? A Rainy day? Not trying to be condescending just want to know how a corporate only run organization would work.

We need to run CAP as a business, because that is what it is.  We are a Congressionally Chartered 501(c)(3) corporation.  We have corporate officers who have the liability of success for our organization.

I'm not advocating that we don't spend money or hoard it.  Exactly the opposite, I am in favor of spending more and doing more.  However, there is only so much that we can do with our ~40 million in appropriated dollars each year and its restricted as to what we can use it for.  The corporate monies have much more freedom of use. 

If the appropriated revenue stream gets smaller (as it is this year), we lose planes, we lose vans, we lose training money, we lose NCSAs, we lose our FCUP, we lose, we lose, we lose.  That is because we have not recognized that as a non-profit corporation we need an alternate revenue stream that consists of something other than membership dues.

We can not just expect to be handed money each year, it is a bad business model.  Right now, our AF missions vs. Corporate mission are about a 90/10 split.  I'm not saying that we reduce our Air Force missions, but increase our corporate ones.  We really should see a 50/50 split, not because we kicked off 40% of our AF missions, but because we gained on the corporate side.  That revenue stream on the corporate funding side would enable us to do more for our members, communities, etc.

FW noted in another thread that if we didn't have appropriated monies and AF support, we wouldn't even be able to lease our NHQ building each year with our corporate income.

Let's take a look at one of the most successful, well known non-profits.  In 2008, Boy Scouts of America reported they had $715 million in assets, with 23 million of that in cash (or equivalent).  They had revenue of 79 million dollars, just from membership fees.  They sell advertising, they have advertisements, people know who they are. 

That is a corporate attitude and culture.  They spend TONS of money on their missions.  However, they don't just expect someone to come along each year and drop 40 million in their lap. 

Their corporate officers are taking an active interest in the financial success of their organization. Right now, our corporate officers (for the most part) cost our organization more than they raise in funds.

Embracing our corporate responsibilities and financial needs will enable us to spread our message and missions more than we do currently.  Resting on our laurels, expecting the AF to do everything for us will only cause us to shrink (especially as budgets shrink).  It will serve only to isolate and segregate us more and put us in a situation where the very existence of our organization comes in jeopardy.

But, I suppose we can keep our heads in the sand and pretending like there isn't a problem that needs to be addressed.

[AirAux]

You can't compare us with the Boy Scouts.  Since they recieve no government funding, many large corporations give very large donations to support them.  These same corporations wouldn't support us since we receive money from the government.  Also there is the issue of missions.  Scouting is all about character development.  Our missions are many fold and having seniors doing counternarcotics/drug missions is not something most coporations want to support.  It's a governmental function.  Our wing has been very well psoken of by the AF and part of that is the counterdrug program we have.  We fly a lot of hours and I mean a lot of hours on this mission and we do it very professionally.  It has the possibility to replace search and rescue missions in the future.  I don't know about otehr wings, but our wing has been well respected by the AF and teh laison officers.  Some squadrons are small basic cadet type squadrons and do well at that, however, our senior program for teh most part flies and does a great job of it.

[Short Field]

You can't compare us with the Boy Scouts. 

Requirement for adult leadership? 

Sorry, that was just too good to let alone.....         

[Eclipse]

You can't compare us with the Boy Scouts.

+1

They own lots of property, camps, have a pretty significant number of employees, and as a 100% private corporation can do whatever they want, including excluding people they don't agree with.

None of that applies to CAP, where most units run on a shoestring, including very expensive operational missions that replace paid-for assets that would cost 10x's as much.

I'd love to see a study that takes just the real-world, actual missions performed in a given year, applies
reasonable cost to those services, and spits out our value to the SAR and general ES communities.

Far too many people like to discount our contribution and constantly harp about how CAP needs to raise their standards and get more professionalized, which isn't a bad idea, but is likely outside our role as secondary and tertiary responders.

Every sand-bag thrown, corner observed, or door knocked, is relief of an FTE who can be used elsewhere.  You start factoring in the overtime that usually comes with off-shift callups to FD & PD people and those numbers add up quickly.

For the record, this thread has nothing to do with anything, and is all about the constant rehashing of the same thread and complaints over and over.  Use the search feature and if you really have something new to say, contribnute to an old thread, otherwise, read what others have said and move one!

[jimmydeanno]

You can't compare us with the Boy Scouts. 

Not as a whole organization, but our corporate "side" we can.  My point was that they "get it" when it comes to keeping their organization alive.  If you take a look at their national 2008 financial report, you'll see revenue streams in there that every "legitimate" non-profit does...except us.

It isn't a matter of mixing our message or forgetting who we are, but remembering who we are.  First and foremost, we are a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation who happens to be the USAF Auxiliary.  That status as the USAF Auxiliary brings with it certain corporate responsibilities and cultural items.  Our corporate officers first and foremost responsibility is to our corporation and its success.  That includes creating a stable revenue stream that can be controlled by us.  We can not control the amount of funding we get through appropriations - and even a small reduction is nearly suffocating to our missions.  If we had to come up with $5 million in corporate money to fulfill our deficit, I don't think we could do it.

The Air Force assigned missions are us living up to our corporate responsibilities to the Air Force as its Auxiliary.  Simply because we receive government funding doesn't mean that we should just give up on seeking alternate funding sources - nor does it exclude most companies or individuals from donating to our corporate funded initiatives.

The last few years, CAP has taken great strides in improving its public trust.  That has included the pursuit of an unqualified audit, streamlining many of our programs, etc.  These steps have been an effort to improve our standing as a non-profit corporation so that we can start to build that additional revenue stream.

Corporations and individuals donating to CAP wouldn't be funding our Counterdrug operations, etc since those come out of appropriated funds or state agency payments.  Their funds could be used for things like; providing facilities for squadrons, investments, regional training sites, reducing the cost of our encampments and NCSAs, scholarship monies, providing more paid support for our volunteers, expanding our AE mission by providing money for events, rockets, etc.  Sponsoring aviation related activities, etc.

My point is, for CAP to grow it needs money.  The extra money isn't going to come from appropriated funds - so that means that our corporation has to pay attention to its revenue from alternate sources, build its investments, gain more sponsors, increase its public awareness, etc or else it will become obsolete or some obscure organization that nobody has ever heard of.

We can fulfill our AF mission obligations and still be a strong independent, financially secure corporation with a heritage and history that includes being the Air Force Auxiliary.

[jimmydeanno]

They own lots of property, camps, have a pretty significant number of employees...

None of that applies to CAP, where most units run on a shoestring, including very expensive operational missions that replace paid-for assets that would cost 10x's as much.

And why is that? Because we haven't been dually executing the responsibilities of being a corporation.  We don't pay attention to the funding stream from the "corporate side."  The stuff above COULD apply to CAP, and we COULD have property, camps, employees, non-shoestring budgets.

We COULD have a financial report that included millions in assets if we didn't just settle with what we have now.  The government agency mindset of just waiting for money to land on our lap each October 1 is what I see is wrong with our culture.

We can't sit here and say, "We can't do that because the Air Force didn't give us enough money this year..."

We want regional training centers?  We want local funding?  It's not going to be paid for by the taxpayers, that's for sure...

[AirAux]

All good, valid points..